EDITO – I have complete confidence in French institutions. They allowed me to educate myself, to forge myself as a man. To my family, they allowed him to take the social ladder. I therefore have no reason to doubt the benevolence of the state towards the citizen. At all times, the state and institutions have shown themselves to be trustworthy, and journalists, by providing honest information, too.
However, as my teachers once advocated, “be prepared for a random check.” We have forgotten the spontaneity of the surprise quiz, and above all its effectiveness in checking the state of what has been learned. Moreover, the administration has specialized in random checks, including road radars and tax checks.
Thus, despite the fact that the good citizen trusts the state, the state allows itself to do random checks in all areas: identity, drunkenness, passes, authorizations, license, permit, vaccination status, etc. From now on, the State also controls publications on social networks, and even, very recently, medical prescriptions.
This without the state suspecting if the citizens, who are controlled in this way, are preparing to break the law or have already been guilty of it.
If this is the rule in force, namely that the State can trust the French while exercising control “in order to verify”, the reciprocal should exist. Control of the proper functioning of the state by the French should pose no problem, neither to the state nor to anyone else. In a State where democracy is king, in our Republic whose principle is ” Government of the people, for the people and by the people “, providing full transparency should be the top priority of the state.
Goodbye! The people have nothing to hide from themselves. A fortiori when article 4 of the Constitution provides that the sovereign is the people, and when article 15 of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen affirms this right in black and white:
“Society has the right to hold any public official accountable for its administration. »
As soon as the social contract binds “ la scompany “, namely the members who constitute it, the French people, to “ son administration “, composed of public officials whose function is to serve civil society, being able to control the proper functioning of the State at all levels is a right that the Constituents have conferred on all French people by this text which is the foundation of our legal system: the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
And it is most certainly not the President of the Republic who will contradict me. Indeed, Emmanuel Macron said this in his speech of May 17, 2017:
“We must fight for the rule of law, for this simple idea that there are universal human rights which are inalienable and imprescriptible. »
And this in his speech of January 19, 2002:
“I have no other desire than to be useful to my country. »
Even more than being Charlie “, defending this conception inherited from the Enlightenment, and respectful like him of institutions, French, French, we are all ” Emmanuel Macron “: all of us, when we assert our right to control the proper functioning of the State, we express no other desire than to make ourselves useful to our country.
This is why I have a few questions:
- Why does the outgoing president not accept the debate with the other candidates of the first round?
- Why, when Laurent Toubiana files a petition in the Senate to obtain data on mortality in France from all causes, is his petition refused? This data should be freely available and accessible to all.
- Why, when Me Protat requests a hearing for the priority question of constitutionality that she has formulated, does the Constitutional Council refuse it to her without in any way justifying her position? At the very least, a reasoned decision should be required.
- Why are the decisions for the management of the health crisis adopted secretly by a Defense Council?
- Why impose a 4ᵉ dose when early treatments are used effectively in many countries, when there have been no studies concerning the 4ᵉ dose?
- Why are we breaking the obvious rules of precaution and free and informed consent?
I’m not a policeman, but like Inspector Colombo: “I really wonder why”.
During the health crisis, expert citizens have played a critical role in analyzing government decisions and getting caught up in this game of control. And it is their right. But despite this, President of the Republic, Government and Parliament listened to the only voice of the covidists, amplified by the media sounding board.
Does the French State wish to respect this right inherited from our Revolution?
Where appropriate, trust does not exclude control, it should pose no problem for the state if French citizens ask the UN for control of the elections, or even to any other country that deems it important to respect this right enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights. This would be a way for France to demonstrate its willingness to leave the group of “failing democracies” in which the famous newspaper The Economist has classified our country for the second year in a row.
If everything is done fairly in France, in “respect for the rule of law” which is so dear to our President, there is absolutely no reason for his own government to oppose it…
Hold ! As long as we are at it, we could even ask the consulting firm McKinsey to carry out this mission, to carry it out for the people and of course with the money of the people. And like that, this time, McKinsey’s client will indeed be the people, and not a subset. All together.
The cops from Paris, the cop from Marseille, the cop from Lyon, the cop from Nantes, etc… the cops from all the football clubs in France confirm:
“Who does not control is not French. Knows! Who does not control is not French. Knows! »